Bounty question: Why did Saints forget about Manning?
With Bountygate in front of us again Wednesday, there's something I find puzzling about this whole Saints' episode. New Orleans coaches and players are accused of putting bounties on the heads of quarterbacks Kurt Warner and Brett Favre in the 2009 playoffs, right? So what happened to Peyton Manning?
He faced the Saints in the 2009 playoffs, too. In fact, he faced them in Super Bowl XLIV, or the game after New Orleans met Favre and two games after it met Warner. So, if the Saints put bounties on the quarterbacks before Manning why would they suddenly stop what they're doing -- especially when the stakes were so high?
I'm not saying they did. I'm just saying it makes no sense that they didn't. There is no evidence of a bounty on Manning, but let's be honest, people: Doesn't that strike you as strange? I mean, if you're going to put bounties on two quarterbacks in the playoffs, why wouldn't you up the ante for the most important game of the season?
Correction, the most important game of any Saints' season.
As reprehensible as the system sounds, it seems to have worked for the Saints then. They pulled together, defeated two of the game's premier quarterbacks and put themselves in a position where no New Orleans Saints club had ever been.
So, suddenly, they're going to stop what they were doing? And they're going to stop when their next opponent is Peyton Manning?
It doesn't add up. There is evidence, the NFL says, that bounties were offered for Warner and Favre in 2009, as well as Cam Newton and Aaron Rodgers later. There have also been allegations that former Saints' defensive coordinator Gregg Williams had one on Manning in 2006 when Williams was with Washington, and former coach Tony Dungy, now an analyst with NBC, suggested Williams had one on Manning in 2000 when Williams was with the Tennessee Titans.
I don't know about that. All I know is that it makes no sense to have bounties on the two quarterbacks preceding the Super Bowl, then to play it straight for Manning and the Colts in the biggest game of the season. Someone please explain.
He faced the Saints in the 2009 playoffs, too. In fact, he faced them in Super Bowl XLIV, or the game after New Orleans met Favre and two games after it met Warner. So, if the Saints put bounties on the quarterbacks before Manning why would they suddenly stop what they're doing -- especially when the stakes were so high?
I'm not saying they did. I'm just saying it makes no sense that they didn't. There is no evidence of a bounty on Manning, but let's be honest, people: Doesn't that strike you as strange? I mean, if you're going to put bounties on two quarterbacks in the playoffs, why wouldn't you up the ante for the most important game of the season?
Correction, the most important game of any Saints' season.
As reprehensible as the system sounds, it seems to have worked for the Saints then. They pulled together, defeated two of the game's premier quarterbacks and put themselves in a position where no New Orleans Saints club had ever been.
So, suddenly, they're going to stop what they were doing? And they're going to stop when their next opponent is Peyton Manning?
It doesn't add up. There is evidence, the NFL says, that bounties were offered for Warner and Favre in 2009, as well as Cam Newton and Aaron Rodgers later. There have also been allegations that former Saints' defensive coordinator Gregg Williams had one on Manning in 2006 when Williams was with Washington, and former coach Tony Dungy, now an analyst with NBC, suggested Williams had one on Manning in 2000 when Williams was with the Tennessee Titans.
I don't know about that. All I know is that it makes no sense to have bounties on the two quarterbacks preceding the Super Bowl, then to play it straight for Manning and the Colts in the biggest game of the season. Someone please explain.
